chris dye

I was thinking the same thing. Why didn't I think of that? Horror is my forte (One of my horror scripts is a Screamfest 2009 semifinalist). I'm pretty sure if I did think of an idea like PA, I would've rejected it for several reasons. The biggest one being I prefer traditional classical moviemaking and stories. It seems most of these microbudget 'movies' that break through have some sort of 'gimmick' about them. While there may not be too many 'camcorder aesthetic movies' out there widely distributed in theaters, there are quite a few more obscure low budget ones made years before PA (and even Blair Witch). Let's not forget, the countless 'paranormal' shows on TV that have almost the same aesthetic. To be honest, I thought it was a tired aesthetic. That's another reason, I wouldn't have pursued it, but obviously I know nothing about the market. I guess I've seen way too many horror movies (both micro and studio level) and shows, but I guess what I think is 'tired' may be 'fresh' to a new generation and I think that's what we have with PA. I remember back in 1991 or 1992 renting a video about aliens terrorizing a family during a birthday party. It was 'classified government footage'. I think it was called UFO Abduction. It was for the most part done with a camcorder in a very convincing manner. When I saw Blair Witch, I was reminded of this. Now I'm reminded again of it and it's interesting how ahead of their time the makers of these early 'found footage movies' were. I guess I'm too old school which is probably why I'll never break through.

I feel much the same way. It was how movies looked that partly drew me into this madness. Film is 'magical'. I look at older 'shot on film' movies on these new HD channels and they're stunning looking, particularly the anamorphic Panavision movies (which I still dream of shooting on). Remember when shooting 35mm was a dream? When I started, the goal was to make your movie look like a 'real' movie. That silly dream is still with me. While HD looks pretty good these days, there's still a slight 'hazy, glazy' look to it. I used to be so anti-video when I started, it was ridiculous and I only recently embraced shooting HD (not DV which I always thought looked horrible). I actually recently 'retired' my old 16mm Frezzolini newscamera for a Sony PMW-EX3. Overall the EX3 is a great camera that takes stunning pictures, but I'll tell you, I look at stuff I shot in the early 90's on an Arri SR1 and even my trusty old Frezzolini and it blows the EX3 images away. There's no beating the genuine film look. I'm not abandoning film in using the EX3. It's just that it's at such a quaility now that you can shoot something that looks decent and isn't a 'one off' as it was with shooting film. Coming from the days when I started shooting film and even editing on film, it's almost too easy shooting with solid state cards and editing on a laptop. The quality and 'ease of use' is at a nice balance now. I'll only go back to film given a decent budget. As far as those who seemingly hate film. I don't understand it much either. They shout 'film is dead or 'down with film', but they go through so much trouble trying to get their video to look like that which they hate. Doesn't make sense. The only reason I think they 'hate' film is because it was an obstacle (more an illusion if you ask me). The cost of film, the 'fear' of film and all the 'troubles' that go with shooting film (sending it to a lab, hoping it turns out, etc) was preventing them from making a film. There was nothing more exciting to me than getting film back from the lab. I never had troubles with labs except when they started to one by one go out of business in NYC. I was naive in thinking that film labs will be around forever at the time. In the early nineties when I started, I was dealing with TVC labs and they shut down on me and I lost a good chunk of money and my negative. Long story, but I learned quickly, so when I was dealing with Guffanti Labs and sensed they were having troubles, I quickly retrieved my negative. Sure enough two weeks later, they too were out of businiess. From there it was Du Art all the way. I could write a book on my first forays in filmmaking. Yeah, making films on film 'back in the day' wasn't for the faint of heart, but as you stated above, film was (and is) a passion and was always worth the trouble and cost to me.

Some directors act as their own DP's like Peter Hyams.

I'll never forget an interview on some website with a low-no budget 'indie' director a few years back. They had two budgets listed for their movie. $50,000 budget for DV. $500,000 for 35mm film. My first thought was that film and lab costs DO NOT amount to $450,000. Something's wrong there. A closer look revealed a couple things such as for the DV project, the director was to be paid something like $5,000. For 35mm, the director would be paid something like $20,000. Not to mention the 35mm budget had much more professional grip and lighting included in the budget among other things like that. The director spoke of cargo vans, trucks, sandbags and all sorts of other professional grip/lighting stuff when talking about shooting film, but with DV, you need none of that apparently. In other words all thoughts 'professional' go out the window when it comes to budgeting and shooting DV. It's this sort of thing that gives 'video' a bad rap, why most DV projects aren't taken seriously and why 35mm is still looked upon as professional.

I'm not so sure studios are that concerned about the cost of film. I don't think it is much of an issue to a studio whether a movie is shot on film or on digital cameras. Most if not all studio films that are shot digitally probably could've shot film if they so chose. As already stated, films have been made for 4 million or less. Some 35mm movies have actually been made for under $100,000. Shooting 35mm is common for movies with budgets of $500,000-$1,000,000, though many are now switching to digital because in that budget range the savings is more significant (but actually not all that much more significant). Everything I ever shot up to now was on film (super 8 and 16mm). I always managed to find a way to shoot on film. I've managed to get many 400ft reels of film for free from Kodak over the years. When working with low and no budgets, you simply wheel and deal. That's part of the game. You find a way. Cost of film never got in the way of making a film for me (though many other factors have). The 'obstacle' of shooting on film was mostly an illusion. You just had to be a bit more determined to make it a reality. If you haven't guessed by now, I'm pro-film, but I have recently started exploring HD. Yes, the Panavision/Genesis test helped turn me to the 'dark side'. (I was never a fan of DV. It doesn't look like film, never did and I'm sure all those who did think it looked like film back when it first burst upon the scene, agree today that it looks like poop). I'm impressed with HD images on some of these smaller cameras these days though (such as the Sony EX3). I love the whole 'tapeless' format as it makes a whole lot of sense, but I still hold the dream of shooting something in anamorphic Panavision. I just hope it doesn't disappear before the opportunity arises.

The Red didn't fare too well on their earlier test either, though some of the video footage looks good, but film is still the clear winner. http://www.vimeo.com/1088550

Don't know if this was brought up yet, but being a huge fan of the 2.35 format, this seems pretty cool: http://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/0,3902...300823-6,00.htm

Don't forget many of the 'classics' were shot on 65mm. Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Ryan's Daughter, The Sound of Music, West Side Story, 2001: A Space Odyssey. All shot on 65mm film for 70mm release. I wish this format would make a comeback.

With the money you're talking, you'll never come close to 35mm in terms of quality. 'Prosumer' video, while it can look nice, will never look like 35mm. For 35mm costs, figure one 1000 foot roll of 35mm film can cost $600 and it's about ten minutes of footage. It's possible to get 35mm short ends for .8 cents a foot. There are places that process 35mm for .10 cents a foot. I believe telecine is about $250/hr or more, but transfers are 2 to 3x the footage length to transfer, so one hour is actually 3 hours of transfer time if I'm not mistaken. So add it up: 6 1000' rolls = $3,600 or 6,000' short ends @ .8/ft (for 200' rolls or less) = $480 (go with Techniscope and you half that cost) Process 6,000' @ .10/ft = $600.00 Telecine transfer (SD) = approx $750 So, if my figures are correct, somewhere between approx $2,000 and $5,000 will get you one hour of transferred 35mm. Keep in mind, deals can be made and film can be had for free. Kodak can be generous. I once got 18 400' rolls of 16mm film for free from Kodak.

Just watched the test footage at Panavision's website. Here are my guesses: Blue Vehicle A-Film B-Genesis Red Vehicle C-Genesis D-Film Silver Vehicle E-Genesis F-Film It's definitely getting more difficult to tell the difference and I'm not entirely sure I'm right, but I think I am.

Do the high end 35mm cameras (Panavision, Arri) have built in contrast viewing filters? Are contrast viewing filters simply ND filters?

I haven't seen Inland Empire yet, but I'm sure it looks okay (if videoy), but not nearly as good as Eraserhead (shot for $10,000 on 35mm no less over 30 years ago.) Wasn't there a DP who once said a good DP could shoot a movie well with only one light? Maybe I imagined that. There are definitely movies that get picked up for distribution where the fact that it was shot on 35mm sealed the deal. I've seen many a movie that looked good but were bad and I'm convinced if it was shot on video, it wouldn't have got picked up and shown on cable. 35mm implies 'professionialism' and at least gives the illusion that there was money behind it. No so with DV. DV, unfortunately is equated with Super 8. You can pretty much figure out why. When I first got my Super 8 camera back in the day, I never thought of using that camera to make something that will get any distribution (let alone make money). When I upgraded to 16mm, I thought maybe, but I know when something is bad, even if it's shot on film. I spared the world from seeing even my 16mm efforts. I need to get better at scriptwriting and working with actors. It always seems to be the downfall. I can watch bits and pieces of my efforts (as it's not all bad) mainly because I like the way film looks (when I lit it well). Some of my 16mm B/W work really has a dreamlike quality and it didn't take any post manipulation at all. It's the one thing it's got going for it. I'm sure I wouldn't bother watching any of my past efforts if they were shot on video.

The only theory I can come up with about this is that these 'old masters' who are declaring film dead are quite possibly bored with film. They have always shot on film. As long as film is around, they can choose to shoot on film or not. I'd probably be the same way and play around with the new toys. Coppola and Lucas have been toying with Hi Def since the early 80's though. Now the 'new masters' as you put it, probably became interested in filmmaking when film was dominant, video was seen as inferior and shooting a movie on 35mm was a dream for them. After all, if you're shooting on 35mm, you're shooting on the same thing that most, if not all of your favorite movies were shot on. If done right, it'll look like a real movie. That's the dream (at least it used to be). I'm old school. My interest in this began long ago (in an age when video was really looked down upon). I was one of the worst snobs back then regarding video. I've loosened up a bit about it as it is starting to look better and better, but still not quite right. There's something funny about the way it looks. The differences nowadays are very subtle, but I can still tell. I've yet to shoot 35mm and always wanted to (especially anamorphic). It's still a dream to me and I almost feel like I have to shoot on 35mm just to get it off my chest (it's been with me for years), even if it's a short. I think film will be around in 20 years, but, sadly won't be the dominant shooting medium. I won't care as long as the new medium looks exactly the same as film (and it probably will).

I still love and prefer the 'classic, old' look of movies to the look of movies today, particularly the look of anamorphic movies of the seventies. I happened to turn on Dirty Harry on a Hi Def channel the other day and was blown away by how sharp it was, yet not slick and glossy. 'Gritty' you might say, but not in a 'grainy' sense (if that makes sense). That to me is the right balance. Sharp, but not slick. Movies of old remastered in Hi Def really make you appreciate just how good these movies were photographed back then and how superior those 'old' cine lenses and filmstocks are to todays state of the art HD cameras.

The Other from 1972 has interesting camera work, I think. Also I like Bava's camera work in Lisa and the Devil. Lush and elegant. I also like these for some of their camera work and lighting: The Innocents The original Black Christmas Let's Scare Jessica to Death Magic Anything from the seventies actually. Even the bad horror movies from this era evoked great atmosphere.